This document provides an overview of constructivism in language education. It discusses key aspects of constructivism including cognitive constructivism proposed by Piaget which focuses on individual development, and social constructivism proposed by Vygotsky which emphasizes social interaction and context. The document also discusses how constructivism aligns with humanistic approaches by focusing on the learner's experience and meaning making. It reviews research showing the effectiveness of constructivist teaching methods in improving student motivation, learning strategies, and academic achievement compared to traditional teaching methods.

1. DOI: 10.5604/23920092.1187859 Vol. 2, No. 2, 2015, pp. 73-77
ThisworkislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution-ShareAlike4.0InternationalLicense.
International Journal of Pedagogy
Innovation and New Technologies
journal homepage: http://www.ijpint.com
ISSN: 2392-0092, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2015
12 12 10.5604/23920092.1134790
Keywords:
Cognition, constructivism,
learning, humanism, language
education
10.5604/23920092.1187859
1. Introduction
Constructivism is an all-encompassing theory of learning that emerged as a prevailing paradigm in the last
part of the twentieth century. Constructivism is a theory which brings cogitation to pedagogy (Bruner, 1966).
Constructivism capitalizes on the ways in which human beings create their own personal constructs of reality
by understanding and experiencing the world. The cornerstone of constructivism is that constructing per-
sonal meaning is ingrained in individual, right from the birth (Vygotsky, 1978).
Constructivist approach explains the ways in which learners make their own personal senses of the learn-
ing tasks, the environment, the teacher, and the actual process of learning (Vygotsky, 1962). Constructivism
has potent nexus with humanism, as both are concerned with the individual’s search for personal meaning.
Humanistic approaches underscore the significance of innermost vale of learner and put the individuals at the
forefront of all human development. Each learner is deemed as a whole person. He or she assumes his/ her
inner world of thought and feeling in relation to others in an individualized learning to become a more active,
successful, and well-rounded individual while interacting and cooperating with other learners. Humanistic
approach stresses on the affective and cognitive aspects of learners in the process of learning. Teachers’ and
learners’ beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions to the learning and teaching are brought into interaction to gener-
ate a consolidating environment for the class to be highly productive. Learner’s response to a task is appraised
by teacher to make it apposite to their development levels (Williams and Burden, 1997).
2. The overview
Constructivism embodies two strands of approaches to the learning, Cognitive constructivism and Social
constructivism. These categories are two both pivotal to constructivism, engulfing the issue of learning in
all the sciences. The names of Piaget and Vygotsky are associated with them respectively. They differ in their
emphasis on social context, though they concur in that human cognitive development commences from the
birth (Williams and Burden, 1997). In a similar vein, Blake and Pope (2008) advocate the use of Piaget’s and
Vygotsky’s theories both in classroom.
Piaget underscored the importance of individual cognitive development as a relatively solitary act. He was
interested in the way in which people came to know things as they developed from infancy to adulthood, stage
Panorama of Constructivism in Language Education
Husain Abdulhay
CONTACT: Husain Abdulhay, MA, Payame Noor University, Iran, E-mail: husainabdolhay@yahoo.com
Abstract:
This overview endeavors to shed light on the conception of constructivism in the process of
language learning. To that end, theoretical and instructional assumption of education against
the backdrop of constructivism is discussed in brief.
-----

2. 74 Husain Abdulhay • Panorama of Constructivism in Language Education
DOI: 10.5604/23920092.1187859 Vol. 2, No. 2, 2015, pp. 73-77
ThisworkislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution-ShareAlike4.0InternationalLicense.
by stage in biological timetables. In this process of maturation Piaget overlooked the significance of social
environment for learning. Social interaction was claimed only to instigate development at the right moment
in time. Learners learn independently without intervention of parents and instructor (Piaget, 1972).
As a social constructivism, Vygotsky considered the role of social environment necessary for molding
personal construct, thought and behavior of learners. Social constructivists hold that learners create meaning
out of the world through social interaction. In education teacher acts more akin to a mediator consulting and
helping learner grow. Social constructivism adopts its stance as internationalist perspective operating within
social context. Learners are actively involved in the process of learning shaping their experiences about the
world by other significant people (Vygotsky, 1962).
Constructivism is part of educational psychology which places the learner at the central focus. Learner
learns by interacting in a social context of teacher and text. Each individual learner is sui generis; no two
learners are the same. The ways they view the world are not the same. Learners bring these differences to the
learning situation. Teachers must be cognizant of these differences. Furthermore no two teachers and teaching
situations are ever the same. Like students, teachers should become self-aware of their beliefs and attitudes to
the teaching and learning and make their own contributions to the learner as the situations arise (Williams
and Burden, 1997). While learners are interacting with the task beforehand, teachers are required to take the
learners response to the tasks to see if they are appropriate to their levels of developments congruent with
Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development which insists on the interactions with the tasks or significant oth-
ers at a level beyond the current level of learners’ developments to be challenging (Vygotsky, 1962). Tasks are
pivotal in the interaction between teachers and learners. Learning must be purposeful, meaningful, and per-
sonal. Teachers must consider learners’ interest and motivation for the tasks if they are to be productive and
supplement to learners’ motivation. As learners are on the hoop for learning, teachers are due to teaching, too.
Albeit constructivism is a coherent theory which has attained a consistent stance in contemporary education,
teachers must not forget that there is no final theory which can be applied to each situation. Teachers can bring
their own theory and best of other theories even though old ones if the situation demands. They must be pro-
tean in their ways of teaching. Constructivism has obtained an invaluable front in education. It spurs learners
and teachers to be cooperative in organizing the class for the learner to get the responsibility of conducting the
course career. Constructivism purports that teachers are not sole transmitter of knowledge and facts but they
work collaboratively in conjunction with students to make the course meaning-based. Learners will construct
their own meaning from, or make their own sense of the tasks with which they are presented. Not only will
the meaning they construct differs, but their emotional responses will also vary (Williams and Burden, 1997).
The emphasis has shifted from the teacher to the learner in the classroom. Children are the creators of
knowledge through interaction and encountered experiences in the classroom. Teachers need to create learner
opportunities where they can explore and acquire knowledge on their own or through interactions with their
classmates. Thus constructivism is premised on the belief that learners actively create, interpret and reorgan-
ize knowledge in individual ways. With the inception of constructivism (Vygotsky, 1962), gradual transition
toward learner-centered education invokes teachers and educators to invigorate and train learners to manage
their studies more regularly and purposefully. Learners need to implement fruitful strategies for handling
their studies. Strategy training is congruent with constructivist learning in a way of creating a bolstering social
environment. Blake and Pope (2008) also believe that students’ learning is likely to augment by teaching strat-
egies in elementary classrooms. Kim (2005) in an experimental study in a course of nine weeks of forty hours
examined the impact of constructivist approach on academic achievement, self-concept and learning strate-
gies, and preference of students of math were 76 six graders. The result showed that constructivist teaching
affects motivation, anxiety towards learning and self-monitoring while traditional teaching had no effect on
self-concept and learning strategy. constructivist teaching appeared to be more effective in comparison with
traditional teaching in respect of academic achievement and that a constructivist environment was favored
than traditional classroom.
However, spoon-feeding rituals of teaching is still practiced in some educational systems, where the fabric
of the culture of the society is shot by through with it. The faculties of traditional classroom-based colleges
run on low-context teaching style dilute collective scaffolding promulgated by learning-centered paradigm
of constructivism. Shi (2013) implemented a constructivist-based method including free writing, forma-
tive assessment, data-driven learning and sentence auction for a comprehensive English course (CEC) in an
-----

3. Husain Abdulhay • Panorama of Constructivism in Language Education 75
DOI: 10.5604/23920092.1187859 Vol. 2, No. 2, 2015, pp. 73-77
ThisworkislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution-ShareAlike4.0InternationalLicense.
instructivist-based teaching environment in China. He observed that students exhibited low or even no moti-
vation for this course in the conventional instructivist way. However the students showed the signs of consent
for English language acquisition with constructivist pedagogy. Research on entrenchment of synergy between
constructivism and language learning will enlighten the utility of such pedagogy.
In an attempt to adumbrate the humanistic perspective to teaching and learning, Herman (1995) resus-
citates the liaison between constructivism and humanism of which educators, researchers and policy makers
have rather been remiss. According to Herman (1995), teachers, in an optimized learning environment where
learners are active, are not acquiescent; instead, they are cooperative and do not condescend to students to
learn with and from them. ‘Uniqueness’, ‘freedom of choice’ and ‘dignity’ are commonwealths of humanistic
approach and constructivism. They both call for integration and identification of all parties involved in an
egalitarian learning community (ibid). Alt (2015) documented that building a vibe of a sharing community
by constructivist educators where interaction and exchange of ideas governed had a potent influence on self-
efficacy. Hassaskhah (2011) in a direct observational study appraising in-service EFL teachers’ sense of effi-
cacy divulged that teachers’ sense of efficacy viz., efficacy in instructional practices and efficacy in classroom
management is developed in a way of adopting a social constructivist approach through which a cooperative
mentality in a non-intimidating context dominates. Uredi (2015) in a descriptive study on a relational screen-
ing mode ascertained the nexus between self-efficacy belief pertaining to implementation of the constructivist
approach of a total of 812 elementary classroom teachers, 461 and 351 females and males respectively, from
among 58 schools in Turkey, Mersin, sampled randomly across the low, medium, and high socioeconomic
classes, and their levels of creating a constructivist learning environment. The simple and multiple regression
analyses denoted that teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs pertaining to implementing the constructivist approach
were positive predictor of their levels of creating a constructivist learning environment.
The view that knowledge in classroom is socially constructed rather than being merely transmitted from
teacher to student has made a significant impact on English language teaching as it has in other subject areas.
Alt (2015) puts it, care given to students in constructivist leaning environment results in capabilities and stu-
dents’ achievement. Constructivism approach to language teaching prompts language teachers to attend more
to the role of individual learner and his needs for better management of his own learning. Constructivism has
been percolating language education likewise by highlighting all aspects of individuals which are worth the
consideration for an effective learning to occur. Constructivism is concomitant of this motion in that indi-
vidual learners are decision makers of their own learning and success. Self-involvement, accommodation and
adjustment found the stepping stone of this approach to language learning and achievement by removing the
concept of passivity and acquiescence and confronting outside demotivators and removing attitudinal barri-
ers through self-efficacious and adjustment of strategies. Constructivist learning environment alleviates the
tension and apprehension practiced in teacher-structured contexts where self-expression is spoilt and appears
a nuisance for language learners. It allows for more self-attunement of thoughts and feeling, be ridding of
affective dilemma, en route to cognitive growth in language proficiency and achievement. The sharing nature
of knowledge construction in constructivism emancipates teachers from suppressing students’ participation
and leaves them with empathy in dealing with present and target situation analysis. As a result, in this way,
learners are summoned for decision-making and have the right to choose the content that appeals to them and
whets their appetites (Herman, 1995). Even though designing instruction is important, constructivist teach-
ing is less about the staging and sequencing of events and more about responding to the needs of a situation.
Teachers’ strategies could include scaffolding, modelling, coaching, guiding, and advising. The teacher is chal-
lenged to select a proper strategy and implement it with skill. Constructivist learning environment even helps
cater for teachers’ needs and set free them not to adhere to a rigid syllabus and consequently enrich theirs and
students’ learning.
Shawer, Gilmore and Banks-Joseph (2008) in an experimental study on EFL students’ cognitive (four
skills competency) and affective change (motivation and interests), hinged upon grounded theory, evidenced
significant improvement in reading and writing skills of students through implementation of classroom-level
curriculum development, which is a representation of constructivist pedagogy, in contrast to that of curricu-
lum-transmission which had no significant contribution to their learning skills. Classroom-level curriculum
development also had positive effect on students’ motivation through taking care of their needs and interests
and their content expression.
-----

4. 76 Husain Abdulhay • Panorama of Constructivism in Language Education
DOI: 10.5604/23920092.1187859 Vol. 2, No. 2, 2015, pp. 73-77
ThisworkislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution-ShareAlike4.0InternationalLicense.
Iglesias Xamaní (2013) in an action-research observed portfolios of English students of a Bachelor’s Degree
in Tourism and Hospitality Management in Spain. They were investigated for their competences, the critical
reflection abilities, and the significance of active participation in their learning process through peer/self assess-
ment. Students’ learning of English was significantly positively influenced by going through the activities.
Constructivism likewise encourages use of inquiry-based, in the form of discovery (Hazari, North and
Moreland, 2009), and problem solving activities (Thompson, 2006). Questioning is the route to catching the
problem and moving to find the solution through which knowledge is obtained by shared parties and enti-
ties. Querying about phenomenon also pushes learners to be autonomous, self-directed critical-thinkers in
search of solutions and ‘discovery-oriented’ (Herman, 1995) en route to contributing to individualized and
communal knowledge.
3. Conclusion
It can be construed from the aforesaid literature that learners don’t stand alone in the construction of knowl-
edge. However, constructivism sets great store by individualized arbitration for knowledge construction set up
in a social environment. It allows for individual’s leeway for formation of concepts, not coerced by his/her nature
inherited. It envisions the panorama of learning as a shared entity between its contributors, not a mere imitation
or indited and indoctrinated prescription. It doesn’t take aim at ruling out the role of cognition or mimicry rep-
etition but does put emphasis on the role of individual and environment both from the outset of birth in knowl-
edge creation. It puts into consideration each individual as a unique creation; thence, teachers must consider
both affective and cognitive responses of per learner to a task in every learning and teaching situation.
References
Alt, D. (2015). Assessing the contribution of a constructivist learning environment to academic self-efficacy
in higher education. Learning Environments Research, 18, 47-67.
Blake, B. and Pope, T. (2008). Developmental psychology: Incorporating Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories in
classrooms. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 1(1), 59–67.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Hassaskhah, J. (2011) Feuerstein’s theory of mediation and its impact on EFL teachers’ sense of efficacy. Jour-
nal of English language teaching and learning, 7, 89-113.
Hazari, S., North. A., and Moreland D. (2009). Investigating pedagogical value of wiki technology, Journal of
Information Systems Education, 20, 187-198.
Herman, W. E. (1995). Humanistic influences on a constructivist approach to teaching and learning. Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, Califor-
nia, April, 18-22.
Iglesias Xamaní, M. (2013). Practical implications of a constructivist approach to EFL teaching in a higher
education context. Journal of University Teaching Learning Practice, 10(2).
Kim, J. S. (2005). The effects of a constructivist teaching approach on student academic achievement, self-
concept, and learning strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review 6 (1), 7–19.
Piaget, J. (1972). The principle of Genetic Epistemology. New York: Basic Books.
Shawer, S. F. Gilmore, D., and Banks-Joseph, S. R. (2008). Student cognitive and affective development in the
context of classroom-level curriculum development. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
8(1), 1-28.
Shi, J. (2013). The application of constructivism: Activities for enlivening comprehensive english class. English
language teaching, 6(2), 63-70.
Thompson, C. J. (2006). Preparation, practice, and performance: An empirical examination of the impact of
standards based instruction on secondary students’ math and science achievement. Research in Educa-
tion, 81(1), 53-62.
Uredi, L. (2015). The predictive power of classroom teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs related to implementing the
constructivist approach upon their level of creating a constructivist learning environment: A Mersin case.
Anthropologist, 20(1,2), 256-267 .
-----

5. Husain Abdulhay • Panorama of Constructivism in Language Education 77
DOI: 10.5604/23920092.1187859 Vol. 2, No. 2, 2015, pp. 73-77
ThisworkislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution-ShareAlike4.0InternationalLicense.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge. MA:
Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press.
Williams, M. and Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist Approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-----